Constitution Dailyhttps://constitutioncenter.org/blog
Smart conversation from the National Constitution Center2018-03-19T17:56:00+00:00en-UShourly1http://expressionengine.com/http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/TTOqGpAQ4TU/gop-loses-pennsylvania-voting-fight-in-one-court
2018-03-19T17:56:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/gop-loses-pennsylvania-voting-fight-in-one-court#When:17:56:00ZIn a unanimous ruling Monday afternoon, a three-judge federal court in Harrisburg, PA, threw out a challenge by Pennsylvania Republican officials and members of Congress about a new map for the election of the state’s 18 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

That ruling, offering no view on the constitutionality of the map drawn up by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, left the GOP challengers with only attempted trips to the Supreme Court to pursue their claims. The Supreme Court has taken no action yet on one challenge that has been pending before the Justices for almost two weeks.

If the Justices do not step in on the side of the GOP challengers, Pennsylvania state officials will go forward with already unfolding plans based on the new House districting lines laid down by the state’s highest court.

In Monday’s decision by a three-judge U.S. District Court, the panel described the issues before it as being “of high importance to our republican form of government” and “of particular salience to the voters” of Pennsylvania. But the judges concluded that those issues could not be raised in this case by the two GOP figures in the state legislature or by eight currently serving GOP members of the House.

It said there would be no way that the legal gaps in the Republicans’ challenge could be filled even if it were to give them the chance to attempt to do so, and thus dismissed their lawsuit entirely, with no chance to revive it.

The GOP challengers do have the option now of appealing that decision to the Supreme Court. Federal law provides that disputes over congressional districting go first to special three-judge trial courts, and appeals from those courts go directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the federal courts of appeals.

The Supreme Court may show its hand on the Pennsylvania controversy when it acts on an already pending plea by the two top GOP members of the state legislature to bar the use of the House districts crafted by the state Supreme Court. That plea technically has been ready for action by the Justices for 13 days.

Meanwhile, using the districts drawn by the state court, more than 180 candidates for seats in the House from the state are circulating nominating petitions. Tomorrow is the last day for them to seek voters’ signatures.

The case before the Harrisburg federal court sought to raise the same two issues under the federal Constitution that are at stake in the case awaiting action by the Supreme Court. The arguments are that the state Supreme Court violated the Elections Clause of the Constitution’s Article I by drawing new districts on its own and by failing to give the state legislature sufficient time to pass a bill to lay out the district boundaries.

But before the three judges could rule on those complaints, that court had to be satisfied that it had jurisdiction to do so. The federal Constitution requires anyone suing in a federal court to prove that their lawsuit involves a live “case or controversy.” Such a controversy must be real and not speculative.

In order to file such a lawsuit and claim that the court has power to decide it, those suing must show three things: that they will be directly harmed by the government action they seek to challenge, that their legal harm will have been caused by that government action, and that if they win the result will remedy their harm.

Those were the legal tests that the three-judge court concluded had not been met, and could not be met, by the two legislative officials and by the eight current House members from Pennsylvania.

The voters who were defending the state court’s map in the Harrisburg court, along with the two Pennsylvania election officials who joined in that defense, had focused much of their arguments on the claim that the three-judge court lacked the power to decide. That, in essence, was the way they won.

Having found no basis for ruling, the three judges did not give their own views on whether there had been a violation of the Elections Clause.

The proceeding now awaiting action by the U.S. Supreme Court is a temporary matter, in which the two leaders of the GOP-controlled legislature are seeking an order to block the use of the state court’s map until those two lawmakers can contest it in a forthcoming appeal from the state Supreme Court. If the delay request is denied, that will allow the current electioneering activity going on in the state to continue, leading up to the primary election on May 15.

Legendary journalist Lyle Denniston has written for us as a contributor since June 2011 and has covered the Supreme Court since 1958. His work also appears on lyldenlawnews.com.

]]>235352018-03-19T17:56:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/gop-loses-pennsylvania-voting-fight-in-one-court#When:17:56:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/tskNzSrqH64/book-preview-william-howard-taft
2018-03-19T15:25:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/book-preview-william-howard-taft#When:15:25:00ZEditor’s note: The following is excerpted from a special preview that first appeared in The Atlantic.

As Donald Trump’s executive orders punishing steel and aluminum imports threaten a trade war around the globe, Republicans on Capitol Hill are debating whether to reassert Congress’s ultimate constitutional authority over tariffs and trade. This isn’t the first time the GOP has split itself in two on the question of protective tariffs. But the last time, just over 100 years ago, the Republican president’s policies were the exact opposite of Trump’s.

William Howard Taft—in his opposition to populism and protectionism, as well as his devotion to constitutional limits on the powers of the presidency—was essentially the anti-Trump. Unlike the current president, and his own predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft refused to rule by executive order, insisting that the chief executive could only exercise those powers that the Constitution explicitly authorizes.

This posture was especially clear on matters of trade. Acknowledging that Congress, not the president, has the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” Taft persuaded lawmakers to pass one of his core campaign goals: lower tariffs (although not as low as he hoped).

It’s still too early to say how much, if any, political fallout Trump’s diversion from current GOP orthodoxy over trade will cause. In Taft’s day, his moderate changes to trade policy ended up dividing the party, and ultimately guaranteed the election of an internationalist Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. But Taft could still claim victory in the long run: Because his trade agenda was enacted by Congress, not by executive fiat, it outlived his presidency. Even more significantly, it established a relatively consistent bipartisan commitment to free trade that persisted for more than a century—until Trump shattered it earlier this month.

Taft’s central promise in the campaign of 1908 was to call Congress into a special session to lower tariffs. Through much of the 19th century, the Republican Party had been committed to moderate protective tariffs on foreign imports to allow U.S. manufacturers to undersell their foreign competitors. But by the time Taft ran for office, that consensus had broken down, and the GOP was immersed in an internecine debate on whether tariffs should be high or low.

]]>235342018-03-19T15:25:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/book-preview-william-howard-taft#When:15:25:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/7Z0vUNLnRi8/thomas-mckean-looking-at-a-most-interesting-founding-father
2018-03-19T09:55:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/thomas-mckean-looking-at-a-most-interesting-founding-father#When:09:55:00ZThomas McKean was a President before George Washington and supported judicial review before John Marshall. But today, McKean is mostly forgotten in the discussion about Founders who had a significant impact on the Constitution and the early Supreme Court.

McKean also had the interesting distinction of serving in the Continental Congress from one state while serving as Chief Justice of another state for more than five years.

He was born in Pennsylvania on March 19, 1734 to parents who were Irish Protestants. He moved to Delaware as a teenager to study the law. McKean moved up quickly in political and legal circles. In 1765, he represented the “Lower Counties” of Delaware during the Stamp Act crisis.

McKean also represented Delaware in the first two Continental Congresses, fought alongside George Washington and he briefly served as President of the Continental Congress in 1781, as British forces surrendered at Yorktown.

But in an interesting twist, McKean led a double life of sorts: While in served in Congress as a representative from Delaware, he was also the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In this role, McKean was a prominent early supporter of a strong judiciary, one strong enough to overturn a state law, if needed, as unconstitutional. He served for 22 years as Chief Justice for one of the most-influential state courts in the new republic.

Although McKean wasn’t a delegate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he worked with another important legal figure, James Wilson, to secure Pennsylvania’s ratification vote for the new Constitution.

In 1790, Pennsylvania changed its own constitution to mirror the federal Constitution, and the state’s Supreme Court, led by McKean, issued several rulings in the following decade that embraced the concept of judicial review.

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling in the famous Marbury v. Madison case in 1803 established the federal precedent of a court’s power to overturn an unconstitutional law, but the Pennsylvania court decisions, along with some writings from Wilson, helped to establish the foundation of judicial review as an important check on legislative powers.

McKean left the court in 1799 to become Pennsylvania’s governor. Already a controversial figure in the state, dating back to the days when he served in the Congress and as a Chief Justice at the same time, McKean left the Federalist party and fought against them over state patronage positions. He switched back to the Federalists in his third campaign for governor in 1805, survived an impeachment attempt, and then retired from politics at the end of 1808.

And there is another interesting footnote about McKean: He voted to approve the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, but he left Philadelphia before the document was signed, to rejoin the fight against the British.

Historians believe he was the last person to sign the document, either in early 1777 or as late as 1781.

]]>198062018-03-19T09:55:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/thomas-mckean-looking-at-a-most-interesting-founding-father#When:09:55:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/Vt15q9EdGgE/10-fascinating-facts-about-grover-cleveland-the-only-double-president
2018-03-18T11:15:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-fascinating-facts-about-grover-cleveland-the-only-double-president#When:11:15:00ZGrover Cleveland stands alone in American history as the only President to serve non-consecutive terms. On the anniversary of his birth, here’s a look at one of most fascinating White House occupants.

On March 18, 1837, the future President was born in Caldwell, N.J. Cleveland passed away in Princeton, N.J., at the age of 71. He had been out of politics after an unsuccessful run at the Democratic presidential nomination in 1896.

Officially, Cleveland is known as the 22nd President and the 24th President, after his wins in the 1884 and 1892 general elections. But he lost the 1888 to his Republican foe, Benjamin Harrison.

Here is a look at the very interesting and unique political career of the only double President.

1. Cleveland’s real first name was Stephen, not Grover. He used the name Grover as an adult; maybe he tired of using the name “Stephen Cleveland” in grade school?

2. Yes, he’s a distant relative of the guy they named the city after. But Grover didn’t grow up in Ohio. He was born in New Jersey and later moved to New York state.

3. Cleveland was a big guy. He wasn’t called Big Steve, as one of his political nicknames, for nothing. At 250 pounds, he was the second-heaviest President after William Howard Taft. Fitness Magazine named him as the least-healthiest President, because of his penchant for beer drinking and cigar smoking.

4. His first career was as a teacher. Cleveland was a teacher at the New York Institute for the Blind in Manhattan before deciding to pursue a law career.

5. Cleveland ran for office in Buffalo and New York state as a reformer. He gained quite a reputation as a fresh-faced politician who fought corruption and patronage. In 1881, he became Buffalo’s mayor and in 1882 he became New York’s governor.

6. What’s the deal with the alleged illegitimate kid? Republicans accused him of fathering an illegitimate child in 1874. Cleveland admitted it was possible, but his law partner, Oscar Folsom, may have also been the father. Cleveland’s honesty helped to blunt the scandal’s impact.

7. Cleveland won the first presidential election by the narrowest of margins. It was a win by just 1,200 votes in his adopted home state of New York that swung the 1884 election.

8. Cleveland actually won his second election in the popular vote. Big spending by the Republicans swing the electoral vote in New York state away from Cleveland, and Benjamin Harrison took the Electoral College vote, and the presidency.

9. A third party helped Cleveland get his second term. The Populist Party took 8 percent of the popular vote, and Cleveland easily defeated Harrison in the 1892 rematch, by a 277-145 margin in the Electoral College.

10. Cleveland gets mixed grades as a President. Historians rank Cleveland as an average President at best, in the same category as Chester Alan Arthur and Benjamin Harrison. Cleveland gets credit for restoring the power of the presidency in the 1880s, but Cleveland’s misunderstandings about political systems and an economic depression in 1893 saw Cleveland’s Democrats lose power quickly and his political career end.

]]>214432018-03-18T11:15:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-fascinating-facts-about-grover-cleveland-the-only-double-president#When:11:15:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/JHNxaCsxNbg/on-this-day-you-have-a-right-to-an-attorney
2018-03-18T10:34:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-you-have-a-right-to-an-attorney#When:10:34:00ZIt was on this day in 1963 that the Supreme Court handed down the Gideon decision, which guaranteed the rights of the accused to have a public defender in court.

In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court concluded that the Constitution required state-provided legal counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys.

Prior to 1962, indigent Americans were not always guaranteed access to legal counsel despite the Sixth Amendment. Clarence Earl Gideon, a Florida resident, was charged in Florida state court for breaking and entering into a poolroom with the intent to commit a crime.

Due to his poverty, Gideon asked the Florida court to appoint an attorney for him. The court declined to do this and pointed to state law which said that the only time indigent defendants could be appointed an attorney was when charged with a capital offense.

Left with no other choice, Gideon represented himself in trial and lost. Gideon then studied the law while in prison, and he filed a petition of habeas corpus to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that he had a constitutional right to be represented with an attorney, but the Florida Supreme Court did not grant him any relief.

Gideon then sent a handwritten five-page petition to the United States Supreme Court asking for his appeal to be accepted. The Court agreed, and future Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas was assigned to represent Gideon.

A unanimous Supreme Court said that state courts were required under the 14th Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys, guaranteeing the Sixth Amendment’s similar federal guarantees.

“The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to have the assistance of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and petitioner's trial and conviction without the assistance of counsel violated the Fourteenth Amendment,” wrote Justice Hugo Black in the unanimous opinion.

The Court also said that the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in criminal trials where the defendant is charged with a serious offense even if they cannot afford one themselves; it stated that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to … have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

“The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law,” said Black.

Gideon did receive a second trial in Florida, where he was found not guilty with the help of an attorney.

An equally significant book from Anthony Lewis, “Gideon’s Trumpet,” memorialized the case in our culture.

]]>214552018-03-18T10:34:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-you-have-a-right-to-an-attorney#When:10:34:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/lGYlxsnTV3E/a-salute-to-the-four-founding-fathers-born-in-ireland
2018-03-17T10:29:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-salute-to-the-four-founding-fathers-born-in-ireland#When:10:29:00ZWhen the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, half of its foreign-born delegates were born in Ireland. For St. Patrick’s Day, here’s a look at these mostly forgotten figures.

By the time of the convention in May 1787, almost all of the 55 delegates who took part in the discussions that summer were born in America. The exceptions were Alexander Hamilton (from the West Indies), James Wilson (Scotland), William Richardson Davie and Robert Morris (England), and the four delegates born in Ireland.

Here’s a look at the four men who played varying roles in the Constitution’s creation.

William Paterson

Paterson represented New Jersey at the convention, but he was born in County Antrim, Ireland, in 1745. He came over to America at the age of two with his family. Young William graduated from Princeton at the age of 18 and soon became a prominent lawyer.

Paterson served as New Jersey’s attorney general before the Constitutional convention. He was only at the convention until late July, but he co-authored the New Jersey, or Paterson, Plan, which sought to protect smaller states against larger ones. Under the Paterson Plan, there would be one legislature, with equally representation for each state.

Part of the Paterson Plan was kept in the Connecticut Compromise, which established the House of Representatives (with representation based on population) and the Senate (which embodied part of Paterson’s plan).

After the convention, Paterson became a Senator, the Governor of New Jersey, and then a Supreme Court Justice for 13 years until his death in 1806.

James McHenry

Born in Ballymena, County Antrim, Ireland, in 1753, McHenry is better-known today for the fort that was later named after him in Baltimore. McHenry was educated in Ireland and came to America in his late teens, with his family soon following him over.

McHenry continued his education here and studied medicine for two years with Dr. Benjamin Rush in Philadelphia. He also was on General George Washington’s staff and he served at Valley Forge, and with the Marquis de Lafayette.

Unfortunately, a family illness kept McHenry away from much of the Constitutional Convention. McHenry later served as Secretary of War for Presidents Washington and Adams.

Pierce Butler

Butler was born in 1744 in County Carlow, Ireland, and his father was Sir Richard Butler, who was a member of Parliament and a baronet. He also served in the King’s military for a time.

Butler moved to South Carolina when he married into a wealthy family. He became a planter and a local political leader, and he was elected to represent South Carolina at the Constitutional Convention. Once there, Butler attended most of the sessions in Philadelphia and he was part of the James Madison-James Wilson caucus. Butler also supported slavery in the South.

Thomas Fitzsimons

Fitzsimons was born in Ireland in 1741, and like James McHenry, he made the journey across the Atlantic in his late teens.

Fitzsimons started a mercantile career in Philadelphia and he went into business with one of his brothers-in-law. Their firm, George Meade and Company, was one of the leading commercial houses in Philadelphia. He also supported the revolutionary cause and paid for supplies to help in the fight against the British.

After the war, Fitzsimons served in the Continental Congress and while he attended the Constitutional Convention as a delegate from Pennsylvania, he was not involved in the proceedings. After the convention, Fitzsimons served three terms in the U.S. House, until he went back to his private life.

]]>214422018-03-17T10:29:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-salute-to-the-four-founding-fathers-born-in-ireland#When:10:29:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/o2V0oIcdeHI/public-school-student-free-speech-a-primer
2018-03-16T18:47:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/public-school-student-free-speech-a-primer#When:18:47:00ZOrganized protests this week at public secondary and high schools related to the Parkland shooting have raised several constitutional issues about student actions at schools. So how are group protests by students limited under the Constitution?

The courts have long said that public school officials can regulate or ban student protests they view as disruptive. But not all protest actions can be considered as disruptive by schools, especially individual efforts that are passive in nature and express “pure speech.”

Certainly, student protests and objections at public high schools aren’t a new Constitutional issue. One of the earliest student First Amendment controversies goes back to the World War II era, while another is rooted in the Vietnam War. And in general, college-age students at public educational institutions enjoy more constitutional First Amendment protections than public high school students when protesting issues or making First Amendment claims. (Most students at privately funded schools don’t fall under a class of people who have First Amendment rights related to public forums at school.)

This distinction between public high school and college students comes from a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Mary Beth Tinker, a 13-year-old student at Warren Harding Junior High School in Des Moines, Iowa, wore a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War and was suspended. A few other students joined her. Tinker won her case at the Supreme Court.

In the 7-2 majority opinion, Justice Abe Fortas said public school students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” While Fortas said these rights don’t extend to conduct that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others,” Tinker’s silent protest was permitted. “Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to ‘pure speech.’ The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners,” which Fortas said was unconstitutional.

The Tinker decision cited an earlier Court decision from 1943, West Virginia v. Barnette, which allowed public school students to decline pledging allegiance to the American flag on religious grounds. Justice Robert Jackson said that school officials had “important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights.”

The limited First Amendment rights of public school students were made clearer by later court decisions about student dress codes, student language, and school newspapers. In 1988, the Court said in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier that public high school officials could censor a student newspaper if needed. Justice Byron White said that “a school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.”

Public school students also can’t use vulgar language as part of a school activity and make a First Amendment protection claim. The Court said in 1986 in Bethel School District v. Fraser that a public high school student who used sexually explicit language in a student-election speech at an assembly wasn’t protected by the First Amendment. “Under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school,” said Chief Justice Warren Burger.

Dress codes at public schools can also be enforced by school officials to a great extent, but not without controversy. Dress code opponents believe the right granted to Mary Beth Tinker to wear an armband also covers messages on T-shirts and other forms of dress. Dress code supporters say Tinker’s ruling allows school officials to prevent “substantial disorder." They also cite another passage from Justice Fortas in Tinker: “The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hair style, or deportment. It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations,’’ Fortas said.

But public schools don’t have broad powers to ban student clothes that have religious meaning. And an evolving area of the law is the right of public high school students to publicly criticize school officials on social media outside of school. The Supreme Court has yet to consider a case on that subject.

Students who attend public universities and colleges face a much-different environment. As adults, they don’t face the restrictions imposed on public high school students under Tinker. The Supreme Court has said public higher education institutions can’t block disruptive groups of students from organizing on campus. But also as adult students, they face the same protest rights and limits imposed on anyone who has access to a public forum on public school property.

A current higher education controversy is the debate over an institution’s ability to ban offensive language on campus as hate speech. This often includes outside groups and speakers who want to appear on campus, even if their messages are seen as offensive by students and college officials. Speech on a public college campus can’t be “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” which is a very narrow standard to prove under another landmark Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. In other words, actions taken by a speaker must cause an immediate riot to be regulated. However, colleges can’t bar speakers because they disagree with their viewpoint, even if that viewpoint represents unpopular or offensive language.

For the high school students who took part in National School Walkout Day protests without the consent of their schools, there are various opinions about how the school can discipline students. It’s clear under Tinker and other decisions schools have that legal right. But if the students were given penalties that exceeded regular penalties for absences, there could be ramifications. University of Florida First Amendment scholar Clay Calvert wrote recently that “school officials who punish students for walking out of class today have the right to do so as long as they are enforcing regular attendance policies in a consistent manner.”

If the punishments exceed normal standards, the First Amendment might come back into play. The American Civil Liberties Union is asking for students to report instances of excessive punishment, claiming that “these forms of punishment far exceed those permitted by statute and are constitutionally suspect.”

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

]]>235302018-03-16T18:47:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/public-school-student-free-speech-a-primer#When:18:47:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/inHN19e3aPk/george-washington-calms-down-the-newburgh-conspiracy
2018-03-16T17:37:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/george-washington-calms-down-the-newburgh-conspiracy#When:17:37:00ZThis week marks the anniversary of an important early event in our Republic’s history: a potential military uprising defused by George Washington.

On March 15, 1783, Washington gave one of the most important speeches in his military career. On a grassy knoll in Newburgh, New York, the man who would become the nation’s first President spoke to a corps of soldiers who were on the verge of mutiny. They were tired, they were bloodied, and they were far from home. Most importantly, however, they had not been paid.

In the days leading up to General Washington’s speech, a number of petitions, all critical of the Continental Congress, had been circulated amongst the soldiers in Newburgh. The petitions contemplated two possibilities: if the British started turning the tide of the war, it urged the soldiers to abandon the colonies and move out west. Or, if the Americans decisively won the war, it encouraged the soldiers to turn their guns on the newly liberated colonies and overthrow the Continental Congress. Either option would have likely spelled the end of the American experiment in democracy before it even started.

In his history of the Newburgh Conspiracy, Richard Kohn of the University of North Carolina described the soldiers’ frustration: “Whom would peace benefit? Not the officers, who could only look forward to growing‘old in poverty wretchedness and contempt.’ Could they, he asked, ‘consent to wade through the vile mire of dependency, and owe the miserable remnant of that life to charity, which has hitherto been spent in honor?’ If so, they would be pitied, ridiculed, for suffering this last indignity. They had bled too much. They still had their swords.”

When Washington heard of the plot, he was horrified. A mutiny of the scale contemplated in the petitions would destroy the public’s confidence in the military and embarrass the United States on the world stage. It also would vindicate the British King’s skepticism of American self-government by transferring government rule from the British to a military dictator. In his March 12thletter to Alexander Hamilton, Washington wrote, “I was obliged therefore, in order to arrest on the spot, the foot that stood wavering on a tremendous precipice; to prevent the officers from being taken by surprise while the passions were all inflamed, and to rescue them from plunging themselves into a gulf of civil horror from which there might be no receding.”

On March 15, 1783, Washington delivered his Newburgh Address to the senior officers of the Continental Army. The speech contained important themes that would later reemerge in the Washington presidency – national duty, the submission of military to civil authority, and the importance of dispassionate and good faith debate. He reminded them of their duty to the American Republic and of his own personal sacrifices for the nation. “A grateful sense of the confidence you have ever placed in me—a recollection of the cheerful assistance, prompt obedience I have experienced from you, … and the sincere affection I feel for an army I have so long had the honor to command, will oblige me to declare… the great duty I owe my Country, and those powers we are bound to respect.”

At the end of his speech, Washington reached into his pocket and put on a pair of spectacles to read a letter from Congress. "Gentlemen,” he said softly, “You will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

According to later accounts, many of the soldiers who heard the speech were moved to tears. As one veteran of the war recalled, "I have ever considered that the United States are indebted for their republican form of government solely to the firm and determined republicanism of George Washington at this time."

The Continental Congress in Philadelphia was shocked when they received news of the averted rebellion. Alexander Hamilton immediately sprang into action, proposing a five-year commutation of the soldiers’ pensions that Congress immediately approved. The Newburgh Conspiracy would not be the last crisis over soldiers’ pay that will shake the nation, however. The Continental Congress’ inability to raise revenue and pay soldiers would later prompt the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783 and Shays’ Rebellion of 1786, demonstrating the urgency of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Still, the Newburgh Address reminded the soldiers and the nation that liberty does not come cheap – it is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is preserved through the patience, sacrifice, and conscience, of those we trust with power.

Ugonna Eze is a Fellow for Constitutional Studies at the National Constitution Center.

]]>235292018-03-16T17:37:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/george-washington-calms-down-the-newburgh-conspiracy#When:17:37:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/vIwqooCCc9M/10-interesting-facts-about-james-madison-2
2018-03-16T10:00:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-interesting-facts-about-james-madison-2#When:10:00:00ZJames Madison, the father of the Constitution, has a birthday today. How much do you know about the fourth president?

Madison, who was born on March 16, 1751 in Virginia, was one of the most influential of all the Founding Fathers. He was a driving force behind the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and presented the first version of the Bill of Rights to Congress.

Madison and Alexander Hamilton also wrote most of the Federalist Papers, which played a key role in getting the Constitution ratified.

Serving as Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state, Madison helped to negotiate the Louisiana Purchase. And as President, Madison served two terms and held office during the War of 1812.

But what else do we know about Madison?

1. Madison was introduced to his wife Dolley by Aaron Burr. Yes, in yet another Founding Father connection to Burr, Madison was taken with the young widow Dolley Payne Todd. Burr was staying at the Payne boarding house in Philadelphia (about three blocks from the current National Constitution Center) and asked Burr to arrange an introduction. The rest is history.

2. Madison and Burr were Princeton classmates. Madison graduated one year before Burr. The men were in rival debating societies at Princeton. Madison graduated in 1771; his roommate was poet Philip Freneau.

3. There was a 17-year difference in age between James and Dolley. The couple dated for just four months before their marriage in 1794. James was 43 years old; Dolley was 26. The couple was inseparable after the marriage.

4. Madison didn’t fight in the Revolutionary War. Small in stature and sometimes sickly, Madison served briefly in the Virginia militia and then entered politics at a young age. He was also the youngest delegate at the 1780 Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

5. Madison really was the Father of the Constitution. He arrived 11 days early for the event, presented his Virginia plan of checks and balances as the foundation of the Constitution, and then worked tirelessly to get the Constitution ratified. Toward the end of his life, a modest Madison said the Constitution “ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands.”

6. Madison wasn’t keen on writing the Bill of Rights--at first. Madison feared that actually listing individual rights in the Constitution would possibly limit other, unlisted rights. He had a change of heart when it became apparent that a Bill of Rights was needed to get the Constitution ratified. During the 1st Congress, Madison presented the first draft of the Bill, which he had written. It had nine articles with 20 amendments.

7. Madison retired for about four years at the height of his political powers. After serving in the House for eight years, Madison walked away from national politics in March 1797 and returned to his estate at Montpelier. But Madison, along with his mentor, Thomas Jefferson, had formed an opposition party to the Federalists, and Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution (in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts) during his time off.

8. Madison’s likeness did appear on U.S. currency. If you have a Madison in your purse or wallet, it is a very rare $5,000 bill. Some are still in circulation; a bill in very good condition went for more than $100,000 at an auction in 2010.

9. We really don’t know what Madison liked to eat. Biographers know a lot more about the meals that Dolley Madison served at social functions. One theory is than Madison liked Virginia ham. But he only weighed about 100 pounds and stood about 5 feet 3 inches tall.

10. Madison was a man of few hobbies. Unlike George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who had numerous pursuits outside of work, Madison stuck with playing chess and reading Latin and Greek literature in their original languages.

]]>214262018-03-16T10:00:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-interesting-facts-about-james-madison-2#When:10:00:00Zhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ConstitutionDaily/~3/EB-JfRVRtf4/trump-tariffs-and-trade
2018-03-15T19:04:00+00:00https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/trump-tariffs-and-trade#When:19:04:00ZOver the past few months, President Trump has announced new tariffs on imported goods from solar panels and washing machines to steel and aluminum. He has also taken swift executive action to block international mergers that he has deemed harmful to U.S. interests from occurring, and has even said he would consider withdrawing from NAFTA and related trade agreements.

President Trump’s protectionist policies are a reversal of mostly free-trade orientated policies of past administrations, and his actions raise important constitutional questions about the extent of executive power over trade policy, separation of powers and the non-delegation doctrine, as well as the future of U.S. and global trade.

Timothy Meyer is a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. He is an expert in public international law, with an emphasis on international economic and energy law. He previously worked as a Legal Advisor for the Department of State, and clerked for now-Justice Neil Gorsuch while he was on the 10th Circuit.

Steve Charnovitz is Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. He is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Law Institute, and the author of many publications including The Path of World Trade Law in the 21st Century.